Major investment lenders want to see that you have the necessary cash flow to maintain operations. The investment funding is seen as just that: an investment.

Capping the size of the loan was requested in conjunction with a major drawdown from the available funds, which, IIRC, were supposed to be disbursed over a longer timespan.

Vote Up0Vote Down

6 years 4 months ago

Guest

Jasper

I have no insider information that I am privy too. However, based on the flood of ever increasing information that is available I would be extremely surprised if SAAB did not prevail. This despite marginal officials like Windmill Maud.

European governments used to be big investors too, investing in the long term future of their industry. Unfortunately officials seem to be only interested in how their actions will affect their next electability or how to elbow their way up in the European Union hierarchy. The sooner Saab becomes independent from the Swedish and European bean counters the better since there seems to be no added value to these administrators. Some people here commented that all parties should refrain from making comments about the process and I agree to a certain extend. However, in all walks of life it is… Read more »

this is not only a European problem. In the US, republicans have decided that government investment in future technologies is a waste. They just want to cut taxes for the rich (alteady low by European standards). Politicians of all stripes rarely will do what’s right on principal, they do and say what they need to be re-elected.

Hi Hugh, We’ve been living in the US since 1996 and, of course, we always discussed the option of returning to Europe for a variety of reasons. It’s only this last year that the discussion has focused on the political and moral climate in the US. In particular the widening gap between rich and poor, but also the intentional undermining of anything related to social considerations (pensions, medical care, etc.) has made us wonder whether we want to see out kids growing up any further in the US. Not withstanding my remarks with regard to the European penny pinchers, Europe… Read more »

Hmm that’s a can of worms-all I can say is that everywhere you look in gonverment’s globally there is massive short termism. its a side-effect of capitalism and-the US is worse but boy is Europe catching up none of it is pretty in my view. But the sun will go supernova in a couple of billion years and nothing like this will matter so for now-to you humans short term is the only thing that matters. Insurance is expensive. ensuring our kids have a decent future is expensive. the returns will never be obvious to us =why bother? Sad isn’t… Read more »

To subsidise one uneconomic and unproven technology but not another, both equally capable of solving the problem supposedly under discussion, non-carbon (or rather low-carbon, there are no non-carbon systems) energy generation, well, there’s at least a soupcon of a suspicion that the choice there is being made on ideological, not practical grounds.

I thought that politicians like that only existed in Norway. Two years ago I realized they had spread to Sweden. Now I see solid proof of their DNA having been spread in both Europe and the US.

What’s going on with SU? Eva Srejber laid out plainly and openly why EIB is not interested in further financing of Saab – they are financing projects, not sustaining businesses with insufficient liquidity to carry them out. I believe EIB has lost their confidence in the ability of Saab to continue the completion of the projects it provided financing for, given the current liquidity crisis, and thus wants out of the deal. This seems logical to me. I am quite disappointed with SU now. Eva Srejber finally given a chance to speak out is booed just because she isn’t cheerfully… Read more »

But Saab has never asked the EIB to provide cash for their liquidity problems! They just want them to lower the loan and release some of the collateral so that Mr. Antonov can buy the real estate and give Saab a cash infusion. Therefore at least I get quite irritated when Mrs. Srejber says “We are not a liquidity provider.”.

I really don’t understand why. Eva Srejber explains their position – Saab is a rather unstable company at that moment, so whenever the collateral is removed, EIB stands at increased risk. This is why they don’t want to essentially continue to provide liquidity to Saab by continuing to extend credit.

I fully understand EIB’s position, even if I believe their passive and defensive stance belies their mission. But at this particular moment, Eva Srejber is being very much to the point.

Howcome? Sweden may suffer some damage as the holder of the collateral .. but the risk for EIB is non existant. I doubt that EIB believes that the kingdom of sweden will be unable to fullfill its obligations because of loss of 200 million SEK worth of collateral.

Have you understood EIBs position then, BfG? Because I haven’t, and I would be glad if someone could explain it to me. I’m not sure about the exact amounts here, so bear with me, but as I understand it, the EIB has pledged to lend Saab something like 400M euros for specific types of development. As collateral for this loan, there’s a bunch of Saab inventory. (As an aside, the loan has an exorbitant interest rate of 10 percent.) Now Saab wants to borrow only something like 280M euros, and they want EIB to release collateral in the same amount.… Read more »

It has to have something to do with the fact that Eva is swedish, and put on her position very much because of her connections with swedish finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer) Anders Borg. It’s all politics, and it is clear that someone has a secret agenda. Also they are starting to worry that Saab maybe can’t make it after all, and this is their only possible way to “force” Saab out of the EIB-deal. They want Saab out of the way, it has been too much a political question, even though one single SEK has been used out… Read more »

The collateral is not pledged to the EIB but to the Swedish state as surety for Sweden guaranteeing repayment of the money to the EIB in case Saab reneges. If anyone should have a problem with releasing the collateral, it’s Sweden as the risk-taker, not the EIB. The latter risks nothing at all, unless Sweden goes bankrupt in the nearby future and cannot repay the loan, should Saab be unable to. As I understand it, Sweden doesn’t object to releasing a (part of) the collateral if the total of the loan it secures is reduced to such a degree that… Read more »

Yes. What ivo 71 said. EIB stands to win either way. Well, in a sense they will win more (interest rates @ 10%?) if Saab continues as a business. If the loan is terminated immediately, then they won’t earn as much as they could have. By needlessly creating waves now, they made Saab’s life more difficult, forcing Saab to find an even quicker way to more funding, rather than allow them more time to find a potentially better way (no way of telling now). EIB came close to putting Saab out of business. From the government’s point of view, there… Read more »

Hey Bravada, please don’t mistrust the SU community. I have really apprediated all your wise commentary over the past years. We ate all worried and under great strain right now, but please hang on! If you don’t mind I like to clearfy with some facts: The EIB does not hold any collaterat in Saab. They just have the Swedish NDO (Riksgälden) word for assuring the loan. Riksgälden (Swedish NDO) is the authority that holds the rights to the Saab collateral valued to 6 billion SEK ( for a loan that’s currently 2 billion SEK). While the NDO has a hold… Read more »

Saab Car Museum

SCM Support

CardYourCar

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.